Jump to content
CyReN

Halo: The Master Chief Collection Discussion

Recommended Posts

Mathematically disprove this: having high damage output and radius of grenades while making them able to randomly fly in different directions if affected by other explosions, adds randomness and easy kills for noobs and breaks the skillgap.

 

Remember... I want to see the mathematical proof.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Mathematically disprove this: having high damage output and radius of grenades while making them able to randomly fly in different directions if affected by other explosions, adds randomness and easy kills for noobs and breaks the skillgap.

 

Remember... I want to see the mathematical proof.

Assuming we are speaking within the context of Halo's existing continuum...

 

Since the damage and radii of these grenades are mathematically greater than another game in which these values are mathematically smaller (remember, this is all relative), individuals have a greater potential to punish mistakes made by enemies and the punishment potential is greater for a poorly thrown grenade (either by hurting yourself or your team)- all by comparing which of these values is mathematically larger/smaller. The skill gap widens with these stronger grenades due to their punishment potential.

 

Because random number generators add non-controllable factors into the game and allow chance to be a part of the equation when determining the outcome of a fight, the skill gap is reduced relative to a game in which no random number generators are present. When the number of RNG's mathematically increases, the skill gap becomes more narrow.

 

Didn't we run this exact same excercise last time?

Share this post


Link to post

Then skillgap is obviously not the quality we are interested in maximizing...

 

Skillgap is one of the qualities we are interested in maximizing without negatively impacting other important qualities. You're basically arguing that the best burger in the world should have 20 lbs of beef and nothing else, because clearly if you're objectively saying it's a great burger you should maximize the burger. That's not how multivariate problems work.

 

There's a reason why NBA basketball hoops are not 1 millimeter wider than the diameter of the basketball. Yes, that would make the physical skill requirement larger, but it would do so to the detriment of other important components of the game. You can still have a skillful game without making the physical skillgap astronomically high.

 

 

Correct. I was never debating this fact. My debate is that the physical skillgap is not the quality of Halo 1 which makes the game so great competitively. Again, using the word "competitively" because the quality we're trying to describe is fuzzy and not easily definable.

 

Yes, physical skillgap is one of the qualities of Halo 1 which makes the game great. Without it you would have a terrible game. "Competitive" is not one single attribute, but that doesn't mean it's therefore impossible, using "competitive" as a metric, to objectively evaluate the merits of each game.

 

You are arguing that mathematical values alone determine skillgap.

 

Everyone here agrees that halo CE takes the most skill. We are only saying it's still an opinion. A very well supported opinion, but an opinion nonetheless. Going so far as to say it is mathematically provable is the falsity.

 

It's not an opinion, it's a fact. It's an opinion that Halo CE is the most fun, but it is not an opinion that it takes the most skill. Mathematical values are what determine the basis of the game (just like mathematical models of physics define our universe), and we can measure them and objectively determine which Halo game requires the most skill. It's not something I'm interested in doing because that's a year-long project, but we can intuitively figure it out without going into the mathematical models.

 

 

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

Mathematical values alone allow us to determine that Halo CE factually has a larger skill gap than every other game within the continuum which halo exists.

Your partner just agreed with me on this, and is now trying to argue that too great of a skill gap is detrimental to overall meta- a completely separate argument than "which Halo game has the greatest skill gap within the continuum which Halo exists."

You don't want Halo's skill gap to be so large that the detriment exceeds the benefit. That's fine. Within Halo's current continuum though, that doesn't exist and has no value when answering the question "Which halo has the largest skill gap."

Oh my god. Are you actually trolling us right now?

 

Premise 1: there exists a Physical Skillgap. This Skillgap exists in such a way that it is a test to ones manual dexterity. Aiming ability, spatial awareness, etc fall into this category.

 

Premise 2: matches in halo are Combinatorial games as defined in game theory. At any point in time, you have x number of choices you can make, and your goal is to find the optimal choice at that point in time based off of what you can predict your opponent will do. This is the same as in games such as Chess or GO.

 

Premise 3: When discussing halo 1 and talking about its deep meta, the guts of what makes the game so competitive, we are primarily talking about the number of viable options a player can make at any point in time (the number of Combinatorial choices available to a player). Further, that any strategy a player takes can be countered if their opponent can anticipate the use of that strategy sufficiently far in advance.

 

Premise 4: Physical Skillgap only exists in order to maximize the number of Combinatorial choices a player can make at a given time.

 

Conclusion: Physical Skillgap is the means of achieving a competitive FPS game with a high number of Combinatorial choices available to a player, not the end goal. Therefore, one cannot make many meaningful conclusions about a game based solely off the Physical Skillgap of that game in isolation.

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

Conclusion: Physical Skillgap is the means of achieving a competitive FPS game with a high number of Combinatorial choices available to a player, not the end goal. Therefore, one cannot make many meaningful conclusions about a game based solely off the Physical Skillgap of that game in isolation.

Where have I argued for anything other than relative skill gap?

 

Literally, one of the first things I explained to you was how I was analyzing the relative skill gap and avoiding the word 'competitive.'

 

If you agree with me that CE has an objectivley larger skill gap than every other halo, we have fully covered my argument.

 

You are making an argument separate from mine.

Share this post


Link to post

Skillgap is one of the qualities we are interested in maximizing without negatively impacting other important qualities. You're basically arguing that the best burger in the world should have 20 lbs of beef and nothing else, because clearly if you're objectively saying it's a great burger you should maximize the burger. That's not how multivariate problems work.

 

There's a reason why NBA basketball hoops are not 1 millimeter wider than the diameter of the basketball. Yes, that would make the physical skill requirement larger, but it would do so to the detriment of other important components of the game. You can still have a skillful game without making the physical skillgap astronomically high.

 

Yes, physical skillgap is one of the qualities of Halo 1 which makes the game great. Without it you would have a terrible game. "Competitive" is not one single attribute, but that doesn't mean it's therefore impossible, using "competitive" as a metric, to objectively evaluate the merits of each game.

 

My goal in this analysis is to attempt to find some value of a Halo game, and be able to say, "The more we can maximize this value, the better the game will be". I am looking for a value which can be maximized irrespective of other variables. I believe that value is the number of Combinatorial choices a player can make and meaningfully make predictions about, which is only limited by randomness. Lets suppose that the best Halo 1 players in the world can meaningfully make predictions about the activities of two opponents, on a map with about 10 fighting areas, and about 2 entrances per area. I would therefore say that the right amount of Bullet-Magnetism / Auto-Aim is whatever values maximizes a player chances of killing an opponent if they were caught off guard, and maximizes the opponents chances of living if they anticipated that move.

 

Your 20lbs of Beef analogy is actually what I'm arguing against. If Aphex is arguing that Halo 1 is a "more competitive" game (whatever the hell that means) because it has a larger Physical Skillgap, then it would be logically consistent to argue for maximizing that value: ie 20lbs of Beef with no bun. My argument would be that you cannot infer anything meaningful about how many viable strategies there are based entirely on high values of auto-aim and bullet magnetism: ie you can't tell how good a burger will be unless you know the full composition of the burger. 

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Where have I argued for anything other than relative skill gap?

 

Literally, one of the first things I explained to you was how I was analyzing the relative skill gap and avoiding the word 'competitive.'

 

If you agree with me that CE has an objectivley larger skill gap than every other halo, we have fully covered my argument.

 

You are making an argument separate from mine.

 

Because you're mixing physical skill gap, and the number of viable strategies a player can take and acting like they're one concept. They are not the same thing, and this is understood by almost everyone in this community. Therefore, arguing about a physical skillgap (as you are doing) is almost entirely pointless. Therefore, the premise of your argument (that the later halo games have objectively less viable strategies because of melee lunch, higher AA+BM, burst utility weapons) is explicitly wrong.

 

Everybody knows in practice that there are less viable strategies in H2 onward, but simply having more autoaim and melee lunge does not constitute "objective proof". This is not debatable.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Because you're mixing physical skill gap, and the number of viable strategies a player can take and acting like they're one concept.

Let's try this- when you say "physical skill gap," which specific elements are you referring to?

 

List the variables that comprise your definition of "physical skill gap."

 

I suspect we actually don't disagree on anything, and are just getting hung up on wording.

Share this post


Link to post

Assuming we are speaking within the context of Halo's existing continuum...

 

Since the damage and radii of these grenades are mathematically greater than another game in which these values are mathematically smaller (remember, this is all relative), individuals have a greater potential to punish mistakes made by enemies and the punishment potential is greater for a poorly thrown grenade (either by hurting yourself or your team)- all by comparing which of these values is mathematically larger/smaller. The skill gap widens with these stronger grenades due to their punishment potential.

 

Because random number generators add non-controllable factors into the game and allow chance to be a part of the equation when determining the outcome of a fight, the skill gap is reduced relative to a game in which no random number generators are present. When the number of RNG's mathematically increases, the skill gap becomes more narrow.

 

Didn't we run this exact same excercise last time?

So then mathematically prove that the grenades in CE don't add more overall randomness to the game than exists in Halo 3.

Share this post


Link to post

My goal in this analysis is to attempt to find some value of a Halo game, and be able to say, "The more we can maximize this value, the better the game will be". I am looking for a value which can be maximized irrespective of other variables. I believe that value is the number of Combinatorial choices a player can make and meaningfully make predictions about, which is only limited by randomness. Lets suppose that the best Halo 1 players in the world can meaningfully make predictions about the activities of two opponents, on a map with about 10 fighting areas, and about 2 entrances per area. I would therefore say that the right amount of Bullet-Magnetism / Auto-Aim is whatever values maximizes a player chances of killing an opponent if they were caught off guard, and maximizes the opponents chances of living if they anticipated that move.

 

Your 20lbs of Beef analogy is actually what I'm arguing against. If Aphex is arguing that Halo 1 is a "more competitive" game (whatever the hell that means) because it has a larger Physical Skillgap, then it would be logically consistent to argue for maximizing that value: ie 20lbs of Beef with no bun. My argument would be that you cannot infer anything meaningful about how many viable strategies there are based entirely on high values of auto-aim and bullet magnetism: ie you can't tell how good a burger will be unless you know the full composition of the burger. 

I guess I don't see the point in that exercise. I don't think you can find one value for a Halo game that we want to maximize without considering the impact on other aspects; it's impossible as far as I can tell. I think you're taking his comment too literally. He wasn't saying Halo 1 is more competitive ONLY because it has a larger physical skillgap. The physical skillgap impacts every other aspect of the game (positively in CE's case), so it's definitely a huge factor but it's not the only factor.

Share this post


Link to post

So then mathematically prove that the grenades in CE don't add more overall randomness to the game than exists in Halo 3.

Random number generators were not used to determine the trajectory of grenades after hitting surfaces/coming into contact with explosions in h1 or h3.

 

Perhaps you would like to re-word the question?

Share this post


Link to post

He wasn't saying Halo 1 is more competitive ONLY because it has a larger physical skillgap.

Anyone that thinks anything other than this has been misunderstanding everything I've been saying- especially after I explicitly stated that I'm avoiding the word "competitive."

Share this post


Link to post

Let's try this- when you say "physical skill gap," which specific elements are you referring to?

 

List the variables that comprise your definition of "physical skill gap."

Something you do -> Physical Skill Gap:

  • Looking around
  • Running around
  • Shooting
  • Melee
  • Throw Grenade
  • Jumping
  • Switching weapons
Decision you make -> Number of Viable Strategies:
  • Deciding where to look
  • Deciding where to run
  • Deciding when and where to shoot
  • Deciding when and where to melee
  • Deciding when and where to grenade
  • Deciding when and where to jump
  • Deciding when to switch weapons
Physical Skill Gap is simply the skill and manual dexterity required to translate a decision into a concrete action.

Random number generators were not used to determine the trajectory of grenades after hitting surfaces/coming into contact with explosions in h1 or h3.

 

Perhaps you would like to re-word the question?

If you can't predict something, it is for all intents and purposes random. If you grenade gets launched in some direction, and you didn't mean to do that, and the person who caused your grenade to get launched in some direction didn't mean to either, that is effectively random. In Halo 2, if someone shoots a frag you are throwing, it will blow up and often get you killed. This is not decided with an RNG either, but that doesn't mean there is any way to plan for this to happen. It is simply bad luck, as nobody can either purposely shoot a frag out of someones hand, nor anticipate when it will happen to them. It is random.

I guess I don't see the point in that exercise. I don't think you can find one value for a Halo game that we want to maximize without considering the impact on other aspects; it's impossible as far as I can tell. I think you're taking his comment too literally. He wasn't saying Halo 1 is more competitive ONLY because it has a larger physical skillgap. The physical skillgap impacts every other aspect of the game (positively in CE's case), so it's definitely a huge factor but it's not the only factor.

>I don't think you can find one value for a Halo game that we want to maximize without considering the impact on other aspects; it's impossible as far as I can tell.

 

I see what you mean, but understand that I'm not talking about one concrete value. I think that given all the analysis that has been done on Halo 1 over the years, we can safely say that (most of) the beauty and depth of the game lies in the fact that the Physical Skillgap is creates a large number of viable strategies, such that a player who can better anticipate their opponents moves can more effectively counter their pushes and increase the effectiveness of their own pushes.

 

That is the value we are trying to maximize. Again, this is super basic and not original work or anything, but I think it offers a lot of insight into why the specific mechanics in H1 work so well. It is also why I think you don't learn anything by discussing the mechanics without also discussing the game as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post

Something you do -> Physical Skill Gap:

  • Looking around
  • Running around
  • Shooting
  • Melee
  • Throw Grenade
  • Jumping
  • Switching weapons
Physical Skill Gap is simply the skill and manual dexterity required to translate a decision into a concrete action.

You and I are in agreement that your definition of a physical skill gap alone is not solely responsible for CE having a larger number of viable strategies relative to h2 and on. That's never been a contention of mine, and you have misunderstood my argument if you believe otherwise.

 

Regarding random grenade trajectories, the inherent randomness/luck present without an RNG- you and I actually have no disagreement there. Making that distinction actually has no relevance to the exercise vinny and I are having.

Share this post


Link to post

God Halo 2 SMG starts is trash.  Worse than Halo 3 AR starts which is also trash.  Why are these game types still here?

Share this post


Link to post

In Halo 2, if someone shoots a frag you are throwing, it will blow up and often get you killed. This is not decided with an RNG either, but that doesn't mean there is any way to plan for this to happen. It is simply bad luck, as nobody can either purposely shoot a frag out of someones hand, nor anticipate when it will happen to them. It is random.

Well unless you are hyena.

 

EDIT: Read that wrong, I was thinking someone throwing a grenade at you.

Share this post


Link to post

What maps work best for Oddball? H2/H3 suggestions welcome.

Oddball maps:

Midship is the king of oddball. Lockout was also really good, with lots of different, creative setups emerging over time.

It's been a long time since I played Halo 1 objective games that I could sink my teeth into (meaning not MCC), but I'd think that the smaller the map the better for Oddball, so Battle Creek, Wizard, Derelict?

Share this post


Link to post

It's been a long time since I played Halo 1 objective games that I could sink my teeth into (meaning not MCC), but I'd think that the smaller the map the better for Oddball, so Battle Creek, Wizard, Derelict?

Chill Out is the best Ball map in the game. Rat Race is bad bc it turns into holding the ball in top port and forcing the enemy to push through a choke point. Wizard is ok if you can tolerate the spawns. Creek ball can get dumb bc it usually turns into portal hopping with the ball. Derelict is actually pretty good for ball.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

On the topic of oddball, Damnation is one of those maps that I bet would have been great for oddball if it wasn't for the quality-of-life issues oddball has in H1. Indeed, a brief analysis of H1 Damnation oddball is a great way to show just how much small things such as oddball physics, default ball placement, and respawn time has on the playability of a map/gametype.

 

Let's first dissect what is problematic with Damnation Oddball. Although the map may seem like a great oddball map from a pure level design perspective, with its many distinct areas and wide variety of potential strategies, similar to Chill Out and Lockout, small issues make it practically unplayable in a competitive settings.

 

There are, in my opinion, three minor issues that together causes Damnation Oddball to be unplayable. First, the ball spawn point: in the middle of waterfall. It is very difficult, with the H1 kill times and effective range of the pistol, to grab and get the ball away from waterfall. You basically need to slay the entire enemy team, hope they get the worst possible spawn (bottom green?), and have great timing on the pickup. Failing that, the ball will go out of bounds. This leads to the second point, namely that the ball respawn time for the ball is way too long in H1. Don't remember how how long, but easily 30 seconds. The entire game thus stalls as soon as the ball falls off waterfall (which happens often). "Play ball" tactics, which are a calculated gamble in e.g. H2 Lockout due to the quick ball respawn instead become 30 second timeouts. Third, the ball physics makes the ball bounce wildly when hit by a grenade. This will often cause the ball to go out of bounds even if it is possible to get it away from waterfall, and then you are back to square one.

 

Oddball Damnation would have played out completely different if these three things were different. Imagine the following: First, the ball is put in a more neutral position, where it is still open, but easier to move the ball into cover (in front of shotguns, perhaps?). Second, if the ball physics were H2 style, the ball wouldn't go out of bounds randomly as often as it does today. Third, a H2-style ball respawn time would make "play ball" tactics require much better time and have higher risk/reward factor than the "30 second timeout" effect present in H1 oddball today. Taken together, this could potentially have made H1 Oddball Damnation awesome. Indeed, the "Reverse Tag" gametype MLG used for damnation, which is kind of "oddball without a ball", gives us some indication that it could work.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

The object of oddball on damnation is to do the OS nade trick where you grab OS mid fall and land on the bottom of the falls while holding the ball.   I've done it with oddball and CTF and the only thing the other team can do is the same trick and battle it out with you down there.

Share this post


Link to post

Is TS the most popular playlist? It's all I search and it takes forever to get a mach like I'm playing right after release again. Somethimes I get them quick but I don't know if I need to restart the game or what.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, the play ball time makes oddball a no-go on any map with an abyss.  We learned that playing Imminent. Oh my God, worst game ever. It quickly became apparent that one team would win, so the other team made it their goal to play ball as many times as possible.  I don't even think we finished the game.

 

If you want to play ball on a map with an abyss, just play Reverse Tag. It's just as good.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.